Liberals BREAK PROMISE On Marijuana Legalization

61 posts / 0 new
Last post
Mighty Middle Mighty Middle's picture
Liberals BREAK PROMISE On Marijuana Legalization

===

Mighty Middle Mighty Middle's picture

NDP MP Don Davies has made it clear. The Liberals have broken yet another promise, this time on Marijuana legalization. Saying

"This is not legalization. As Jodie Emery said, it's 'prohibition 2.0.' It makes cannabis use less illegal, and while I'm not putting a value judgment on it yet, it's not legalization."

https://www.straight.com/cannabis/969286/its-not-legalization-following-...

Watch during the 2019 election the NDP will use this as another broken promise. Saying that the Liberals HAVE NOT legalized Marijuana at all, but this is prohibition 2.0. But will voters understand the machinations behind the new pot laws?

Pondering

No voters will not care about the details. People will no longer be arrested for possession of pot. People will be ticketed for smoking in forbidden areas. The details are left up to the provinces so Trudeau can't be blamed for that.

Ontario's draconian approach will fail as it will for any province that attempts it. It's a huge missed opportunity to do it right but I am not worried. Once it is legal the clock cannot be turned back. When the reefer madness type warnings fail to materialize people will realize how inocculous it is.

The black market will thrive in Ontario. The sales structure is already set up. Relatively small farms grow all over the country. They aren't going to stop. The black market cannot be controlled through legal means. Legal outlets will have no choice but to compete. 10$ a gram won't do it because it is too easy for the black market to undercut. Growers will start to use mail order more because corporations are going to be allowed to use mail order which will make it very difficult for the post office to catch illegal shipments. Reserves are obviously going to get into the business of growing and selling. They can't be stopped from selling cigarettes. I'd be shocked if they don't get into growing and selling cannabis. It's a perfect fit. It's an easy crop to grow and profitable.

Even though Ontario is trying to forbid home growing it will be impossible to prevent people from doing it.

I was looking forward to legalization in part because I could get get a better selection of strains and develop favorite brands. That's not going to happen with the limited product that will be in authorized shops because they are planning to limit growing to huge corporations. So legal or not I will grow my own and trade with others who grow their own.

The big benefit here is that research in Canada will explode. We are the first of all the G20 countries to fully legalize. For researchers the limitations will be a non-issue. They finally have a country in which they can safely conduct research and trials. I fully believe that the potential benefits of cannabis as a medicine are huge. As that become more and more evident the scare-mongering will become laughable. I would not be at all surprised if Trudeau's motivation to keep the July 1st 2018 date is to beat other countries to legalization so that the research will be established here first.

It is unfortunate that Ontario is missing the golden opportunity to set the industry up using a state of the art approach. The black market could be almost completely absorbed so that they wouldn't be competition. Give growers a legal means to farm and sell and most will take the legal route. Grandfather in existing compassion clubs, at least the older ones. Hire them to help set up the industry in such a way that the government gets a huge chunk of money. They have a wealth of knowledge. All of their growers would love to go legal. They would probably accept making less money in order to go legal.

Obviously I am not happy about the way this is rolling out. Instead of taking advantage of the opportunity to make fact-based decisions they are trying to drag their heels, prohibition 2.0 is an excellent description. I'm just confident it won't work any better than prohibition 1.0. It's not going to be any easier for them to control the black market. They couldn't control it before. There is no reason to believe policing will suddenly be more effective.

The provinces are being stupid. They seem to be accepting that production licensing will be controlled federally. Licensing should be provincial just as it is for alcohol and probably tobacco as well. New Brunswick is already courting growers and planning to develop the industry as rapidly as possible.

The dinosaurs are goingt to be swept away. Prohibition 2.0 will fail spectacularly. Ontario is going to look so stupid if New Brunswick reaps the financial rewards of legalization while Ontario loses money on their system. BC is also likely to take a much more progressive approach to legalization.

Canadians will be able to compare the provinces performance. Quebec is also making prohibition 2.0 noises, like considering not allowing any home grown, not even 4 plants. The provinces that will benefit financially are those who accept legalization and make fact based decisions on how to proceed. Those of us stuck in the stupid provinces will have to sit and watch other provinces get the jump on us but we will catch up because the difference will be so stark.

Politically Trudeau has been very smart. He has kept a lot of control in federal hands. By licensing all production the federal government is sure to get its share off every gram produced. The four plant limit is aimed at preventing individuals from growing and selling to friends and family and to appease landlords a bit. He is leaving all the details to the provinces so he won't wear the criticism of whatever problems arise.

Politically Trudeau is fine on this topic. The grand majority of people will consider this a promise kept. It will be next to impossible to convince them otherwise. It's not worth the trouble. If the last election taught me anything it is that the public pays very little attention so it is necessary to focus on one or two major issues and the economy is always the number one issue. Remember how just before the election the big security bill that the public suddenly became aware of and were against. Remember how Trudeau supported it while promising to change it if he were elected. Six months later it was totally forgotten. It had zero impact on the election. This won't either. The election will be won or lost based on the economy. So far Trudeau is doing very well on that score. The media is allowing him to frame CETA as a progressive trade deal. I think CETA might be his achilles heel if people really understood what it was about.

That is where the left has lost. It has failed to educate the public on the mechanisms that transfer wealth to the already wealthy. That has allowed the right to develop a cancerous populism in which the anger is misdirected to the benefit of the wealthy.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Pondering wrote:

No voters will not care about the details. People will no longer be arrested for possession of pot. People will be ticketed for smoking in forbidden areas. The details are left up to the provinces so Trudeau can't be blamed for that.

Ontario's draconian approach will fail as it will for any province that attempts it. It's a huge missed opportunity to do it right but I am not worried. Once it is legal the clock cannot be turned back. When the reefer madness type warnings fail to materialize people will realize how inocculous it is.

The black market will thrive in Ontario. The sales structure is already set up. Relatively small farms grow all over the country. They aren't going to stop. The black market cannot be controlled through legal means. Legal outlets will have no choice but to compete. 10$ a gram won't do it because it is too easy for the black market to undercut. Growers will start to use mail order more because corporations are going to be allowed to use mail order which will make it very difficult for the post office to catch illegal shipments. Reserves are obviously going to get into the business of growing and selling. They can't be stopped from selling cigarettes. I'd be shocked if they don't get into growing and selling cannabis. It's a perfect fit. It's an easy crop to grow and profitable.

Even though Ontario is trying to forbid home growing it will be impossible to prevent people from doing it.

I was looking forward to legalization in part because I could get get a better selection of strains and develop favorite brands. That's not going to happen with the limited product that will be in authorized shops because they are planning to limit growing to huge corporations. So legal or not I will grow my own and trade with others who grow their own.

The big benefit here is that research in Canada will explode. We are the first of all the G20 countries to fully legalize. For researchers the limitations will be a non-issue. They finally have a country in which they can safely conduct research and trials. I fully believe that the potential benefits of cannabis as a medicine are huge. As that become more and more evident the scare-mongering will become laughable. I would not be at all surprised if Trudeau's motivation to keep the July 1st 2018 date is to beat other countries to legalization so that the research will be established here first.

It is unfortunate that Ontario is missing the golden opportunity to set the industry up using a state of the art approach. The black market could be almost completely absorbed so that they wouldn't be competition. Give growers a legal means to farm and sell and most will take the legal route. Grandfather in existing compassion clubs, at least the older ones. Hire them to help set up the industry in such a way that the government gets a huge chunk of money. They have a wealth of knowledge. All of their growers would love to go legal. They would probably accept making less money in order to go legal.

Obviously I am not happy about the way this is rolling out. Instead of taking advantage of the opportunity to make fact-based decisions they are trying to drag their heels, prohibition 2.0 is an excellent description. I'm just confident it won't work any better than prohibition 1.0. It's not going to be any easier for them to control the black market. They couldn't control it before. There is no reason to believe policing will suddenly be more effective.

The provinces are being stupid. They seem to be accepting that production licensing will be controlled federally. Licensing should be provincial just as it is for alcohol and probably tobacco as well. New Brunswick is already courting growers and planning to develop the industry as rapidly as possible.

The dinosaurs are goingt to be swept away. Prohibition 2.0 will fail spectacularly. Ontario is going to look so stupid if New Brunswick reaps the financial rewards of legalization while Ontario loses money on their system. BC is also likely to take a much more progressive approach to legalization.

Canadians will be able to compare the provinces performance. Quebec is also making prohibition 2.0 noises, like considering not allowing any home grown, not even 4 plants. The provinces that will benefit financially are those who accept legalization and make fact based decisions on how to proceed. Those of us stuck in the stupid provinces will have to sit and watch other provinces get the jump on us but we will catch up because the difference will be so stark.

Politically Trudeau has been very smart. He has kept a lot of control in federal hands. By licensing all production the federal government is sure to get its share off every gram produced. The four plant limit is aimed at preventing individuals from growing and selling to friends and family and to appease landlords a bit. He is leaving all the details to the provinces so he won't wear the criticism of whatever problems arise.

Politically Trudeau is fine on this topic. The grand majority of people will consider this a promise kept. It will be next to impossible to convince them otherwise. It's not worth the trouble. If the last election taught me anything it is that the public pays very little attention so it is necessary to focus on one or two major issues and the economy is always the number one issue. Remember how just before the election the big security bill that the public suddenly became aware of and were against. Remember how Trudeau supported it while promising to change it if he were elected. Six months later it was totally forgotten. It had zero impact on the election. This won't either. The election will be won or lost based on the economy. So far Trudeau is doing very well on that score. The media is allowing him to frame CETA as a progressive trade deal. I think CETA might be his achilles heel if people really understood what it was about.

That is where the left has lost. It has failed to educate the public on the mechanisms that transfer wealth to the already wealthy. That has allowed the right to develop a cancerous populism in which the anger is misdirected to the benefit of the wealthy.

Ok, the party political left(the NDP) has failed to educate the public on those issues-it's leaders have always been somewhere between dismissiven and terrified about the idea of actually offering a radical critique of the political and economic superstructure, concerned more with avoiding looking "like a bunch o' damn commies"-even in an era in which big-c Communism has been extinct in Western politics from at least the era when Louis St. Laurent hired those guys with baseball bats to break heads and unions-than with offering a real alternative to the status quo.  They have settled for a defeatist notion of "social democracy" that offers nothing but band-aids on the sucking wounds inflicted by unrestrained greed.  They won't allow themselves to imagine anything significantly better, let alone propose it.

All true.

Would you at least agree, though, that none of that can be changed by people to the left of the NDP voting Liberal in federal elections?

Mighty Middle Mighty Middle's picture

Pondering wrote:

 Remember how just before the election the big security bill that the public suddenly became aware of and were against.

I see your point Pondering because Mulcair & NDP spent so much political capital on C51 (even putting STOP C51 on candidate Campaign signs!). Hopefully the NDP will be smarter this time, but doesn't look like it. Already they are trying to frame the narrative that POT is still illegal, and the Liberal have broken this promise.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

I dont care..I have no problem scoring as is. Not surprised at all about this.

voice of the damned

Pondering wrote:

No voters will not care about the details. People will no longer be arrested for possession of pot. People will be ticketed for smoking in forbidden areas. The details are left up to the provinces so Trudeau can't be blamed for that.

 

Agreed. As long as people are able to acquire marijuana with the same degree of convenience that they can now acquire, say, cigarettes, very few voters are gonna quibble about the rules on plant-size.

 

Pondering

Ken Burch wrote:
Ok, the party political left(the NDP) has failed to educate the public on those issues-it's leaders have always been somewhere between dismissiven and terrified about the idea of actually offering a radical critique of the political and economic superstructure, concerned more with avoiding looking "like a bunch o' damn commies"-even in an era in which big-c Communism has been extinct in Western politics from at least the era when Louis St. Laurent hired those guys with baseball bats to break heads and unions-than with offering a real alternative to the status quo.  They have settled for a defeatist notion of "social democracy" that offers nothing but band-aids on the sucking wounds inflicted by unrestrained greed.  They won't allow themselves to imagine anything significantly better, let alone propose it.

All true.

Would you at least agree, though, that none of that can be changed by people to the left of the NDP voting Liberal in federal elections?

Yes absolutely and I always voted NDP in the past to send a signal even when I knew they had no chance. This time I saw the chance to get rid of Harper and to get marijuana legalization. Next election is a whole new ball game .

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

BTW,Québec has really disappointed me. This place is no more progressive than the Prairies even though your average Quebecer is pretty tolerant.

My guess is if other provinces such as BC,New Brunswick and Ontario have better policies,Quebecers will demand the same.

I knew this would be a clusterfuck as soon as the Liberals won the election and didn't at least decrimin alize it while they came up with legislation. Another lie.

And being a Quebecer,I'm not sure what's happening here next election. It will be another PLQ government or something even worse (believe it or not) a CAQ government.

It should have been legalized federally with a strong law that would force the provinces to participate like it or not.

As I said,I can score pot almost anywhere in this city. The law really doesn't matter. What I was most excited about was thinking that cannabis possession would not be criminal anymore. Handing out tickets will just motivate the police to crackdown harder than they already are.

What a joke.

Mighty Middle Mighty Middle's picture

alan smithee wrote:

What I was most excited about was thinking that cannabis possession would not be criminal anymore. Handing out tickets will just motivate the police to crackdown harder than they already are.

What a joke.

Which is why the NDP is arguing that this is NOT legalization at all. And I predict they will raise it as another broken promise by the Liberals in 2019.

Jacob Two-Two

I called this over two years ago when the promise first got trotted out. Liberals always lie. No exceptions.

Pondering

Can we smoke cigarettes anywhere we want?  No Can we drink alcohol anywhere we want? No. Can anyone sell cigarettes and alcohol? No. These are both controlled substances. Cannabis is joining them as another controlled substance. All three of these substances are legal to purchase and consume as of July 1st 2018.

As a consumer, this is pretty much what I expected. I would have liked more but I am not surprised. I never expected a free for all.   I doubt anyone did.

If the NDP claims this is a broken promise in 2019 they are begging to be mocked and treated as a joke assuming anyone notices. If they do notice the NDP will undermine their own credibility on everything else they say for having made such a ridiculous claim. They will lose more seats. The only people who will agree will be devoted supporters of the NDP and compassion club owners and growers.

All the NDP has to do to win is to come up with a financial plan for the country that really would benefit the majority of Canadians and communicate it on 4 levels of complexity. A short quotable, a paragraph, a short essay, and finally a longer explanation for the experts.

Right now on CETA the NDP could be saying we should drop the ISDS because the Europeans don't want it and it is all that is standing in the way of complete acceptance. Trudeau is pretending it is a done deal because many aspects will come into force before radification but it is not a done deal. The NDP should be challenging the Liberals on why they are insisting that the ISDS stays part of the agreement.

Instead the NDP is criticizing the Liberals on the deficit and pot legalization. Those are the "big issues".  Voting NDP at this point wouldn't even send a message. The NDP is just a less successful version of the Liberals.

I agreed with the party's shift to the centre for the sake of electibility in decades past but it is as if Occupy, Corbyn and Sanders never happened for the NDP backroom boys. Others see going radical and championing all causes as the way to go.

Absolutely nobody, not the Liberals, not the Conservatives and not the NDP, has the interests of the majority of Canadians in mind. At this rate the Liberals will probably win the next 2 elections and maybe even a 3rd.

voice of the damned

I agree with Pondering that if there comes a time when Canadian adults are able to walk into a store without a prescription and buy weed just like it was any other controlled substance, the NDP is going to look pretty silly if they try to tell everyone that marijuana hasn't been legalized. Whatever the actual technical definition of "legalization", the scenario I described above is pretty much covered by most peoples' understanding of the term. 

And, on the topic of definitions, I think progressives like Davies should be very careful about citing Marc Emery's standards for what qualifies as prohibition and legalization. As a right-wing libertarian, he is likely setting the bar pretty low for what qualifies as a descent into state-sponsored tyranny. 

progressive17 progressive17's picture

Marc and Jodie Emery are pot entrepreneurs with their own interests at heart over and above everything else.

If the law changes so you can't get busted for smoking a joint in the privacy of your own home, weed will be legalized for all intents and purposes.

The NDP should not cavort with the likes of the Emerys. 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Indeed Pondering those kinds of electoral statistics are what drive all Liberal decisions. It still does not change the fact that it is a broken promise. I am waiting to see what the NDP government, backed by the Greens, does in BC. I am hoping that instead of a 1950's style Ontario regime they will allow a far wider range of places to consume some of the local product.  The Liberal's appear to be embedding a bonanza for their corporate friends if no small growers can be licensed to grow for sale like micro-brewers do for beer.

Trudeau would be far more interested in actual legalization if the best pot had been developed and named Quebecois Bud.  The name BC Bud highlights that it is part of my West Coast culture to an extent that is not comparable in other parts of the country. You are totally right that as long as people in Quebec and Ontario don't care much about an issue then it matters not at all to the Liberal party. All one needs to see is the trumping of BC's coastal environment and its heritage and culture by the "national interest" while setting up roadblocks to the pipeline that people in Quebec oppose.

In BC we get a project that is opposed by the majority of Mayors and Counsels affected and most of the First Nations affected who have rights to unceded land as well as both of the parties in the province's ruling minority govermnment. We get to be ruled by the national interest not the right to determine basic things like what risk to our tens of thousands of year old  Salish Sea coast traditions and the burgeoning eco-tourism industry is acceptable. 

So please we actually understand that the Liberals are all about electoral mathematics and that writing off BC has historically been a recurring Liberal game play. The idea that people in the part of the country that I live in will stop buying pot from their friends and neighbours and switch to corporate produced and packaged pot is a pipedream. Unless small growers can produce and sell then the war on drugs will be in full effect on my island because of our culture, but thats okay to the majority of the people in your province because we are not protected by the right to self determination. Our culture is about alternatives to the majority Canadian culture that is why we send NDP and Green MP's and MLA's to our legislatures. It would be nice if all parts of Canada could have their cultures respected by the oligarchy and its lying mouthpiece Trudeau. In the meantime you are likely right that the people in Quebec and Ontario will provide Trudeau with at least a minority government and I predict that the people of the BC coast will provide him with a sound thrashing for his broken promises on two very important issues to BC voters, especially millenials.

Personally I would like to see the nations and communities ringing the Salish Sea join together in a new federation and declare independence from the Central Canadian colonial system that never views our interests as important. 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Can we smoke cigarettes anywhere we want?  No Can we drink alcohol anywhere we want? No. Can anyone sell cigarettes and alcohol? No. These are both controlled substances. Cannabis is joining them as another controlled substance. All three of these substances are legal to purchase and consume as of July 1st 2018.

I think that's a fair point.

But we still have lots of cigarette smokers complaining that they can't light up whereever they wish, and saying "if this is now Nazi Russia then why not just ban them outright instead of making me stand 9 metres from a doorway!?!?"

Masturbation is legal.  But you can't do it in a bus shelter.  You can't do it on the school grounds.  You can't do it in a car with children.

That said, is there something about marijuana that's so much more empirically harmful that we couldn't allow people to smoke it wherever they can currently smoke tobacco?  Someone show me with numbers.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

I think the most important issue in legalizing cannabis is stopping the criminalization for those who possess it. Where one can smoke and how many plants they can grow is secondary.

I think most people are missing the point.

It's not an injustice to be told how many.if any,plants one can grow or where it is appropriate to smoke. It's about ending ruining people's lives for possessing and consuming cannabis. That's the real injustice and it has to stop ---yesterday.

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:
It still does not change the fact that it is a broken promise.

I don't know what promise you think was broken. Cannabis will be as legal as cigarettes and alcohol. Personally that is pretty much what I expected.

kropotkin1951 wrote:
The Liberal's appear to be embedding a bonanza for their corporate friends if no small growers can be licensed to grow for sale like micro-brewers do for beer.

Duh. The Liberals have always catered to corporations. This is not something new.

kropotkin1951 wrote:
The name BC Bud highlights that it is part of my West Coast culture to an extent that is not comparable in other parts of the country. 

B.S. Your weather is more suited to growing.  Growers and users in Ontario are no more satisfied with draconian laws that those in BC. We don't yet know what Quebec will do. I hope better than Ontario.  Has BC announced what it is doing? I haven't heard anything. Let's see what rules the NDP comes up with. Let's see if they defy the federal government and licenses small growers.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

You are totally right that as long as people in Quebec and Ontario don't care much about an issue then it matters not at all to the Liberal party. All one needs to see is the trumping of BC's coastal environment and its heritage and culture by the "national interest" while setting up roadblocks to the pipeline that people in Quebec oppose.

 

Tell me kropotkin, why did BC keep electing Christy Clark?  Your premier agreed to the oil pipeline. My premier didn't but that probably isn't why EE is being dropped. They are hoping to get Keystone and Transmountain done. With those they don't need EE anymore.

I think there are ulterior motives to your bashing of Ontario and Quebec.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

In BC we get a project that is opposed by the majority of Mayors and Counsels affected and most of the First Nations affected who have rights to unceded land as well as both of the parties in the province's ruling minority govermnment. We get to be ruled by the national interest not the right to determine basic things like what risk to our tens of thousands of year old  Salish Sea coast traditions and the burgeoning eco-tourism industry is acceptable. 

 

Christy Clark, your premier, the one you elected over and over again, approved the pipeline.  Maybe your new premier will do better. I genuinely hope so. You see I can be happy for the people of BC and Canada if Transmountain is stopped. I would cheer it. BC is part of my country.

kropotkin1951 wrote:
The idea that people in the part of the country that I live in will stop buying pot from their friends and neighbours and switch to corporate produced and packaged pot is a pipedream.

What makes you think cannabis users in Ontario are going to fall into line?  I fully expect the black market to flourish and I hope prices go down and selection goes up on the black market. The legal market will fail if it isn't allowed to absorb or compete with the black market. That is not special to BC.

kropotkin1951 wrote:
Unless small growers can produce and sell then the war on drugs will be in full effect on my island because of our culture, but thats okay to the majority of the people in your province because we are not protected by the right to self determination.

What the heck are you talking about…..

https://globalnews.ca/news/3765322/quebec-sovereignty-groups-rally-to-support-catalans-in-independence-movement/

Quebec sovereigntists held a demonstration in Montreal on Saturday in support of Catalans, who they say are being repressed.

The rally took place in downtown Montreal, in front of the Spanish consulate.

Le Réseau Cap sur l’indépendance — an umbrella organization representing about 20 Quebec sovereignty groups — was protesting Spain’s attempt to stop a banned independence referendum in Catalonia.

Jennifer Drouin, president of Quebec Anglos for Independence, explains that “all people have a right to their self-determination.

So have you organized a demonstration supporting Catalonia's right to self-determination?

kropotkin1951 wrote:
Our culture is about alternatives to the majority Canadian culture that is why we send NDP and Green MP's and MLA's to our legislatures.

So why did you keep electing Christy Clark over and over again? Doesn't seem much different to me. You  finally managed to cobble together a minority coalition to unseat Clark but the numbers are close. This was no landslide for progressives. BC hasn't announced it's rules yet. It hasn't contested the federal government's declaration that they will be the licensing authority.  So far you have not got a lot to brag about in terms of how BC intends to approach the industry. Maybe they will take an enlightened approach. I hope so. Unlike you I wish well on my entire country not just my corner of it.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

 It would be nice if all parts of Canada could have their cultures respected by the oligarchy and its lying mouthpiece Trudeau. In the meantime you are likely right that the people in Quebec and Ontario will provide Trudeau with at least a minority government and I predict that the people of the BC coast will provide him with a sound thrashing for his broken promises on two very important issues to BC voters, especially millenials.

 

About 21 million Canadians out of 35 million live in Ontario and Quebec. Central Canada has always outnumbered other parts of Canada combined. When other provinces joined they were fully aware of it. They were also fully aware that Canada is greater than the sum of its parts which is why they joined despite the population imbalance. We should be practicing free trade between provinces. Our medicare system should be genuinely national. One card for all of Canada.

I'd be delighted if BC rejects Trudeau in favor of whomever is leading the NDP. I would not be so happy if they forsake him for Sheer.

kropotkin1951 wrote:
Personally I would like to see the nations and communities ringing the Salish Sea join together in a new federation and declare independence from the Central Canadian colonial system that never views our interests as important. 

And right there is your ulterior motive. If that geographic area wants independence then they should absolutely have it.  There is no need to bash central Canada. You have a narrative in your head to try to convince others to agree with you and it includes turning the "other" into villains. That's a losing argument. Quebec sovereigntists tried it.  The only way to get people to vote for separation is to illustrate how they would be better off economically. Nothing short of that will get majority support.  All Canadians want good medical care, education, housing, safety,  a fulfilling life. Prove to Canadians that you can do a better job of delivering those things than the next guy and you win the election.  Blaming the other guy is for losers.  I don't blame Trump for winning I blame everyone who let him. The one good thing about the Trump presidency is it has shown what a sham politics has become.

Pondering

Mr. Magoo wrote:
That said, is there something about marijuana that's so much more empirically harmful that we couldn't allow people to smoke it wherever they can currently smoke tobacco?  Someone show me with numbers

Like alcohol cannabis is a mind altering substance. Although most professionals will admit it is not as harmful as alcohol you will be hard put to find one that will say it isn't a mind altering substance. As such government can impose the limits of both alcohol and tobacco on cannabis.

I think it's a real shame if the provinces don't embrace this as a new industry that can benefit us economically on multiple levels including research and tourism. It's a real shame if they try to prevent vape lounges and all home growing.

Just think about it a minute. Mail order is legal.  There is no way to tell the difference between illegal and legal pot by smell so dogs will be useless for spotting packages mailed within Canada.

There are only two ways for the government to defeat the black market. Either absorb it or compete with it. It would be smarter to absorb it. Meaning, license existing growers work out a deal with long standing compassion clubs.

NDPP

Although not as lucrative  a gig as Glen Clark's lackying  for  right-wing billionaire Jimmy Pattison, I expect Marijuana Mike will do just fine too...

Ex-Premier Mike Harcourt Chairman of Medical Marijuana Company

http://www.vancouversun.com/health/premier+Mike+Harcourt+chairman+medica...

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Like alcohol cannabis is a mind altering substance. Although most professionals will admit it is not as harmful as alcohol you will be hard put to find one that will say it isn't a mind altering substance. As such government can impose the limits of both alcohol and tobacco on cannabis.

OK, but that's not how we should specifically be regulating things like marijuana.

In other words, it should be regulated entirely on its own harms, not treated the same as alcohol solely because it's similar to alcohol in one specific respect.

I'm just wondering why a person can (for example) smoke a cigarette in the park but not a joint?  Both are harmful, to some degree, to anyone forced to sit near them, but we haven't banned cigarette smoking in parks that I know of.  I'm just curious what's the real difference?

The fear that if someone smokes a joint in the middle of the park they'll go all "Reefer Madness" and start running around yelling "I'm a UNICORN!  I'm a UNICORN!!!"

And personally, I think you should be able to drink a beer in the park, too -- and then be subject to sensible laws regarding y0ur behaviour after that beer is quaffed.  But the simple drinking of that beer shouldn't constitute a crime, IMHO. 

Jacob Two-Two

Hey, does everyone remember when Pondering couldn't, just couldn't, conceive of supporting Mulcair because he wasn't pushing for full legalisation? Because science said pot was harmless and he didn't respect science (her words). Now the Liberals aren't respecting science and her response? Defend the Liberals, as always. Of course Pondering can't help being a humongous hypocrite when she's determined to defend a party that changes their stances every time they open their mouths. It doesn't matter what the issue is, it's always fine when "Team Red" does it, and always wrong for everyone else.

Never change, Pondering. You remind us all that Liberals are completely incapable of meaning anything they say.

Aristotleded24

Pondering wrote:
Central Canada has always outnumbered other parts of Canada combined. When other provinces joined they were fully aware of it. They were also fully aware that Canada is greater than the sum of its parts which is why they joined despite the population imbalance. We should be practicing free trade between provinces. Our medicare system should be genuinely national. One card for all of Canada.

That is absolutely not true. Several provinces were dragged kicking and screaming into Confederation. My home province took up an armed revolution to make sure its rights were recognized. I invite krop to go into greater detail about the issues BC had with the CPR the time it joined. Newfoundland and Labrardor was the last province to join, and despite the massive media campaign in favour of Confederation at the time, that province barely voted to join. And Confederation also impacted the shipping routes of the Atlantic provinces, damaging their economies in the process. There are many tensions and problems that the regions have with the federal government and how their interests are represented. Western Canada is no different, and many pipeline proponents are framing the rejection of Energy East as an issue of Western Alienation. Push us far enough, and there will be a Reform II breaking out on the scene that will be openly separatist.

Pondering

Aristotleded24 wrote:
That is absolutely not true. Several provinces were dragged kicking and screaming into Confederation. ...many pipeline proponents are framing the rejection of Energy East as an issue of Western Alienation. Push us far enough, and there will be a Reform II breaking out on the scene that will be openly separatist.

Canada did not force the other provinces to join. I have no problem with any geographic area or province separating from Canada if that is what the people want. I do have a problem with bashing central Canada. We didn't propose Trans Mountain. 

Frame the rejection of EE anyway you like it that doesn't make it the truth. EE was not rejected out of any anti-west sentiment. It's being rejected because it threatens our environment. I 100% support the people trying to stop Trans Mountain. 

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

I was at my mother's and she received this big news letter from her MP in the mail. She wasn't interested but I picked it up and read it. There were some issues talked about and some boasting about spending money on 5 co-ops in the riding (wow)

But what caught my eye was the issue of cannabis legalization.

The title was in big letters but the details were written so small that I needed a magnifying glass to read the details (I'm not joking and I have absolutely perfect vision)

It said all the right things but it was purposely written so no one could read it.

If you live in the Lasalle-Verdun-Sud Ouest riding in Montreal,the MP (Dave Lametti) isa having a town hall about cannabis legalization October 15.

I don't live in that riding but I'm debating whether to go anyway.

First question. Why did you hide the details by writing them out so small no one could possibly read them without a magnifying glass?

Something smells bad about that.

voice of the damned

Am I the only one who wasn't aware that Trudeau made this statment back in December of last year?

https://tinyurl.com/

If, as he says, the government never claimed July 1st as the date, there is probably an interesting Masters in Journalism thesis to he wringed from studying just how that came to be so widely reported in the Canadian media.

 

josh
mark_alfred
voice of the damned

I can't get the link to work on this computer. What basis do the lawyers think they have for overturning convictions?

As far as I know, if a bartender, for example, is convicted of knowingly serving 17 year olds alcohol, he doesn't get to have his record erased if the drinking-age is later lowered to 17. He knew what the law was at the time, and chose to break it.

I suppose it would be a nice thing for the government to do, overturning convictions for what is now regarded as an unjust law, I'm just not sure if it's something a court would ever order them to do.

 

voice of the damned

And I'll ask...

What is the predecent for something which(unlike in my drinking age example) was totally illegal, being then legalized? Have people who broke the law under the old dispensation had their records swept clean after legalization? Sincere question, not rhetorical.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Have people who broke the law under the old dispensation had their records swept clean after legalization?

The only example that really springs to mind is homosexuality laws, and and occassional -- if decades later, or even posthumous -- pardons.

I certainly doubt that if, say, we upped the speed limit on highways, we'd grant amnesty to past speeders, since we're unlikely to someday come to believe that 100kph is somehow an "unjust" law.  But we could, someday, feel that way about pot "crimes".

voice of the damned

Apparently, the date for full implementation has been pushed up to late summer. Though if, as per Trudeau, July 1st was never the set date, I'm not sure why any "new" date would be considered important news.

https://tinyurl.com/yam8me38

 

 

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

I don't get it. It's not like the Libs want to legalize hand grenades or bazookas.

I am SO.SICK.OF.Reefer.Madness. Enough with this.

I wish the Liberals had the balls to ram this through and legalize it by late March. Or deciminalize it in the meantime. They have all the facts on their side. You just have cops,doctors,psychiatrists,people who are offended by the smell (I get offended by the smell of egg sandwiches,think that's a reason to be arrested,get a criminal record and possibly jail time? Yeah,I didn't think so) and dinosaurs who think cannabis is a very hard and powerful drug. Those people should be FORCED to do heroin one day and pot the next and if they still feel that way,I'll respect their opinion.

Doctors don't want to lose the kick backs they get to prescribe which ever pharma company that is pushing its pill of the week to unsuspecting patients (especially psychiatrists) Some cops think this will hurt their career . (No one is stopping you from playing hero with more pressing issues than a damned plant)

I'm also sick of rehab 'experts' talk about people going to rehab because of their pot problem. Thing is,if that's true,these people are LOSERS and should be laughed off the planet. I hate the misinformation and out and out lies about this innocuous plant. Reefer Madness needs to be brought to the back of the barn and executed by bullet and then its carcass dragged around town.

Enough is enough.

This was supposed to happen in 1971. Get it fucking done ffs.

voice of the damned

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Have people who broke the law under the old dispensation had their records swept clean after legalization?

The only example that really springs to mind is homosexuality laws, and and occassional -- if decades later, or even posthumous -- pardons.

I certainly doubt that if, say, we upped the speed limit on highways, we'd grant amnesty to past speeders, since we're unlikely to someday come to believe that 100kph is somehow an "unjust" law.  But we could, someday, feel that way about pot "crimes".

I supect that most progressives who think it appropriate to have a mass pardon for men convicted of homosexuality, would, on the other hand, not think it appropriate to have a mass pardon for men convicted of buying sex, in the event of a full, non-Nordic legalization of prostitution.  

Even people who don't think buying sex neccesarily entails exploitation would still probably think "Oh well, those guys wanted sex, they broke the law to get it,  they got caught. Stupid laws, but no one was forcing those guys to break them."

I guess the question is, what sort of difference is there between "I wanted sex, and broke the law to get it", and "I wanted weed, and broke the law to get it", in terms of how much sympathy we have for the people who get arrested and have their lives wrecked as a result?

 

voice of the damned

alan smithee wrote:

 

 

I wish the Liberals had the balls to ram this through and legalize it by late March.

Thing is, it might not be a question of reproductive apparati, so much as the constitution. The Senate exists, and has the constitutional authority to hold up legislation. As far as I know, if a majority of members REALLY want to stop something from passing, the only option the government has is to go to London and ask Her Majesty to add a few more seats, as Mulroney did to get the GST through.

I don't think it'll get to that point with weed, but I could see the senators hemming and hawing just long enough to embarrass and/or annoy Trudeau.

 

 

bekayne

voice of the damned wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

 

 

I wish the Liberals had the balls to ram this through and legalize it by late March.

Thing is, it might not be a question of reproductive apparati, so much as the constitution. The Senate exists, and has the constitutional authority to hold up legislation. As far as I know, if a majority of members REALLY want to stop something from passing, the only option the government has is to go to London and ask Her Majesty to add a few more seats, as Mulroney did to get the GST through.

I don't think it'll get to that point with weed, but I could see the senators hemming and hawing just long enough to embarrass and/or annoy Trudeau.

 

 

Hemming and hawing is right:

http://www.cbc.ca/listen/shows/as-it-happens/segment/15519108

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

voice of the damned wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

 

 

I wish the Liberals had the balls to ram this through and legalize it by late March.

Thing is, it might not be a question of reproductive apparati, so much as the constitution. The Senate exists, and has the constitutional authority to hold up legislation. As far as I know, if a majority of members REALLY want to stop something from passing, the only option the government has is to go to London and ask Her Majesty to add a few more seats, as Mulroney did to get the GST through.

I don't think it'll get to that point with weed, but I could see the senators hemming and hawing just long enough to embarrass and/or annoy Trudeau.

 

 

But if it was a policy like a Canadian Patriot Act,it would pass the senate faster than an industrial strength laxative.

It's a body of government that isn't needed and should have been abolished years ago.

BTW,please don't micro-manage my speech. It's very authoritarian.

lagatta4

Now some idiot spokesbot says Québec won't "allow" people to grow a modest amount of pot chez eux. Remember, we have the right to make our own wine in beer, in quantities suitable for domestic consumption (not to sell). This is utterly ridiculous and hypocritical. Sorry, I didn't catch the name of the spokesbot, as I was writing about support to BC wine - of course that goes for BC weed.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I guess the question is, what sort of difference is there between "I wanted sex, and broke the law to get it", and "I wanted weed, and broke the law to get it", in terms of how much sympathy we have for the people who get arrested and have their lives wrecked as a result?

Well, I can only guess, like anyone.  But my guess would be that we would be likely to have the most sympathy for those prosecuted for what we see as "victimless" crimes.  Homosexuality meets that criteria.  Maybe someday possession of a joint will too.  Things like drunk driving or paying for sex might continue to seem a bit sketchy.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

alan smithee wrote:

I don't get it. It's not like the Libs want to legalize hand grenades or bazookas.

I am SO.SICK.OF.Reefer.Madness. Enough with this.

I wish the Liberals had the balls to ram this through and legalize it by late March. Or deciminalize it in the meantime. They have all the facts on their side.

 

What "facts" are those? You likely mean observations and theories, as unfortunately, little fulsome research is available, much like the pharma's.

Quote:
You just have cops,doctors,psychiatrists,people who are offended by the smell (I get offended by the smell of egg sandwiches,think that's a reason to be arrested,get a criminal record and possibly jail time? Yeah,I didn't think so) and dinosaurs who think cannabis is a very hard and powerful drug. Those people should be FORCED to do heroin one day and pot the next and if they still feel that way,I'll respect their opinion.

 

How about UNFORCED folk like me? My opinion is you are talking out your ass and have no idea about the comparative analysis of cannabis and opium.

Quote:
Doctors don't want to lose the kick backs they get to prescribe which ever pharma company that is pushing its pill of the week to unsuspecting patients (especially psychiatrists) Some cops think this will hurt their career . (No one is stopping you from playing hero with more pressing issues than a damned plant)

 

Some people just want what THEY want.

Quote:
I'm also sick of rehab 'experts' talk about people going to rehab because of their pot problem. Thing is,if that's true,these people are LOSERS and should be laughed off the planet.

Perhaps I could help you with some better smoke, as your chill is a bad vibe bro. Do you have no compassion or understanding for these LOSERS born without your apparent/delusional immunity to any ill effects?

Quote:
I hate the misinformation and out and out lies about this innocuous plant. Reefer Madness needs to be brought to the back of the barn and executed by bullet and then its carcass dragged around town.

Enough1 is enough.

 

I'm quite sure Canadians are happily endorsing the changes with eloquent spokespeople like you presenting such well researched opinion.

 

 

Quote:
This was supposed to happen in 1971. Get it fucking done ffs.

 

You've waited almost half a century, get some better bud. I find my edibles are much better than smoking.

 

I'm chronic and liberal in my self medicating. Be happy the day is coming but no need to ridicule others absent malice directed at you.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Hey asshole. It doesn't take a PhD to know that cannabis and opium are not the same -- on any level

You want to defend the fucking ignorant,uninformed pissants who are deluded by reefer madness? Go right ahead,you're as big of an idiot as they are.

Sorry. I have no compassion for these people who hold up this progress and keep this ancient law that was initiated by racism,not substance to keep going,some want the laws tougher. Fuck them all. They have no compassion or empathy for people whose only 'crime' is of tweeking their conscience so I could not give 2 fucks about them.

And the Liberals DO have the facts and the right attitude about legalization. The bottom line is it's about killing an unjust law and putting the end of senseless arrests,convictions (a felony right now),and possible jail time for possessing or circulating the bud of a fucking plant. That's what it's about..it's not about your fucking edibles,Buckwheat. It's also an economic boon that will benefit everyone including the majority of people who do not smoke or eat edibles.

and talking about edibles and asses,why don't you shove one so far up yours that you fucking choke on it.OK,motherfucker?

voice of the damned

Smithee wrote:

But if it was a policy like a Canadian Patriot Act,it would pass the senate faster than an industrial strength laxative.

It's a body of government that isn't needed and should have been abolished years ago.

Yeah, I'm not saying the Senate is being logical in stalling on weed, while rubber-stamping far more dubious legislation. My point is simply that there isn't a lot we can do to force logic and consistency upon them. The whole senate system is deliberately set up to be unaccountable to public opinion.

And I agree, it should have been gone a long time ago(and I don't buy the argument that a left-leaning senate can be useful in blocking conservative legislation). But I wonder if there's any way it CAN be abolished, given that any law scotching the Senate would have to pass throught the Senate itself. The best a government might be able to do is the "Caligula" thing, ie. treat the Senate with as much contempt as is allowable by law. Don't fill vancant seats, or nominate joke candidates, publically insult the body at every chance, etc. Maybe eventually they'd get the hint, or at least not raise too much fuss when the last of them retires without any replacements.   

 

 

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

voice of the damned wrote:

Smithee wrote:

But I wonder if there's any way it CAN be abolished, given that any law scotching the Senate would have to pass throught the Senate itself. The best a government might be able to do is the "Caligula" thing, ie. treat the Senate with as much contempt as is allowable by law. Don't fill vancant seats, or nominate joke candidates, publically insult the body at every chance, etc. Maybe eventually they'd get the hint, or at least not raise too much fuss when the last of them retires without any replacements.   

 

 

That sounds like a great idea. I can certainly treat the Senate that way but in the end it will be up to the PM,the parties and our MP's. I can't see the Conservatives being on board with that because (I think) they have a majority in the Senate and they play a key role in passing draconian legislation, quite easily actually. If there are some vacancies,I would think Trudeau would fill those seats to attain a majority. But that is highly unlikely.The Liberals are just as bad as the Cons when it comes to the Senate.Both of them are not keen to the idea of killing the Senate. As it stands,it's just a million dlollar welfare program where they get their generous pay cheques on the condition that they show up to 'work' 3 times a year.IF they feel like it.

But I like your idea better.

cco

voice of the damned wrote:

And I agree, it should have been gone a long time ago(and I don't buy the argument that a left-leaning senate can be useful in blocking conservative legislation). But I wonder if there's any way it CAN be abolished, given that any law scotching the Senate would have to pass throught the Senate itself. The best a government might be able to do is the "Caligula" thing, ie. treat the Senate with as much contempt as is allowable by law. Don't fill vancant seats, or nominate joke candidates, publically insult the body at every chance, etc. Maybe eventually they'd get the hint, or at least not raise too much fuss when the last of them retires without any replacements.

Quebec bought its Senate off. Seriously. Guaranteed salary for life, and all they had to do was not work anymore.

As far as the idea of simply not appointing any more senators goes, I remember gaming that out with some constitutional law enthusiasts a few years back (when it seemed like Harper's plan). At a certain point the Senate would lack quorum, and therefore no law or budget could constitutionally be passed. At that point, I think the Governor-General would be forced either to appoint new senators without the advice of the PM, or to dismiss the PM and replace him with whoever she thought could command the confidence of the House and would willingly advise on the composition of the Senate.

Of course, the simpler thing to do would be to wait until a majority of the seats were vacant, and appoint young people dedicated to abolition. Until there's provincial consent, those senators could show up to work every day, move to disregard the standing orders and adopt whatever bills the House had adopted without debate, and adjourn. Turn it into a true rubber stamp, not an occasional bill-delaying machine, and see how much enthusiasm there is for keeping it around then.

lagatta4
alan smithee alan smithee's picture

I wouldn't support the Canadian Senate to be abolished by promising Senators a gauranteed salary for life.

But I wouldn't have a problem with handing them severance pay and wishing them good day. The party is over.

lagatta4

I think the calculation was based on Senators being fairly elderly. It is true that people live longer now on average than 50 years ago. Do they get a pension when they have to retire?

I really want to get rid of the Senate though. What is to be done with the chamber?

Pondering

The only way to get rid of the Senate is to reopen the Constitution. That's a can of worms. 

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Seriously. I live in Qu'ebec. The people are open minded and Montreal is a pretty progressive city. So why then do we have these half wits ( not just PLQ the whole bunch of them) leading the province?

http://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/ottawa-issues-warning-over-re...

 

lagatta4

Québec solidaire is supporting the right of people to grow cannabis for their personal use their domicile. Note that people already have the right to produce a modest amount of beer and wine for personal use.

https://twitter.com/amirkhadir

Pondering

alan smithee wrote:

Seriously. I live in Qu'ebec. The people are open minded and Montreal is a pretty progressive city. So why then do we have these half wits ( not just PLQ the whole bunch of them) leading the province?

http://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/ottawa-issues-warning-over-re...

Because the only topic people voted on for years was sovereignty so politicians could do whatever they pleased on everything else. Now there are two federalist parties, or at least non-sovereignist parties, so the Liberals are in trouble. 

Pages